Posted on 04/15/2006 8:11:03 AM PDT by Hadean
IRAN has said it could defeat any American military action over its controversial nuclear drive, in one of the Islamic regime's boldest challenges yet to the United States.
"You can start a war but it won't be you who finishes it," said General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the head of the Revolutionary Guards and among the regime's most powerful figures.
"The Americans know better than anyone that their troops in the region and in Iraq are vulnerable. I would advise them not to commit such a strategic error," he told reporters on the sidelines of a pro-Palestinian conference in Tehran.
The United States accuses Iran of using an atomic energy drive as a mask for weapons development. Last weekend US news reports said President George W. Bush's administration was refining plans for preventive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.
"I would advise them to first get out of their quagmire in Iraq before getting into an even bigger one," General Safavi said with a grin.
"We have American forces in the region under total surveillance. For the past two years, we have been ready for any scenario, whether sanctions or an attack."
Advertisement: Iran announced this week it had successfully enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel, despite a UN Security Council demand for the sensitive work to be halted by April 28.
The Islamic regime says it only wants to generate atomic energy, but enrichment can be extended to make the fissile core of a nuclear warhead -- something the United States is convinced that "axis of evil" member Iran wants to acquire.
At a Friday prayer sermon in Tehran, senior cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Janati simply branded the US as a "decaying power" lacking the "stamina" to block Iran's ambitions.
And hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that a US push for tough United Nations sanctions was of "no importance".
"She is free to say whatever she wants," the president replied when asked to respond to comments by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice highlighting part of the UN charter that provides for sanctions backed up by the threat of military action.
"We give no importance to her comments," he said with a broad smile.
On Thursday, Ms Rice said that faced with Iran's intransigence, the United States "will look at the full range of options available to the United Nations".
"There is no doubt that Iran continues to defy the will of the international community," Rice said, after Iran also dismissed a personal appeal from the UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief must give a report at the end of April on Iranian compliance with the Security Council demand. In Tehran he said that after three years of investigations Iran's activities were "still hazy and not very clear".
Although the United States has been prodding the council to take a tough stand against the Islamic republic, including possible sanctions, it has run into opposition from veto-wielding members Russia and China.
Representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany are to meet in Moscow Tuesday to discuss the crisis.
In seeking to deter international action, Iran has been playing up its oil wealth, its military might in strategic Gulf waters and its influence across the region -- such as in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
(snip)
You need look no further than this statement to KNOW WHY Iran is beating it's chest like King Kong.
Thank you Democrats and the MSM......traitorous scum they are.
"Let's see general, we fought "The Mother of All Battles" and it took us 100 hours. "
It couldn't last any longer: Schwartzkopf's tanks were out of gas by that time.
Forget the conventional spin on the Gulf War that a cringing Colin Powell, watching live tape of the Highway of Death, put an end to the war. Or even to the idea that the "Arabs would not let us go to Baghdad". The truth is that even with 5 months in which the Iraqi's didn't lift a finger against us, we still could only move enough gasloline forward for 100 hours of operations, mostly because the Iraqis crumbled instead of fighting, and that allowed us to move faster than anticipated.
In effect, they screwed up our schedule and that included the logistics end of it too: we had the supplies, but they weren't scheduled to be there yet and there was no provision to move them forward at an acclerated rate.
To quote Rossikovski: Amateurs discuss tactics; Professionals discuss logistics.
I'm reminded of those early MSM fright reports showing a unit of Saddam Insane's
MOST ELITE REPUBLICAN GUARD, each member,on command, biting a live chicken's head off.
That was so scary,I had to put the yorkie in the laundry room.
And then there was ....."The Mother of all Wars Awaits YOU "! ...Boo!
I think Rumsfield should go on TV and give these diaper headed thugs 24 hours to board a plane to club Gitmo or, before the year is out, every Mosque in Iran will be renamed after an outstanding Rabbi. Boo!
The Iranians are a whole different cup of tea. They have learned that Europeans, Democrats and many Republicans's can be intimidated by these rants (they still remember Jimmy fondly and read Al Gore and John Kerry's press releases today, which are indistinguishable from Jimmy's foreign policy).
And, Iran's record of success is nothing to sneeze at. They are still in power 25 years after storming the US Embassy and about to become a nuclear power. Why should they imagine the US would grow a pair today?
The whole game here is to create enough uncertainty to stall until 2008, until a dem is elected president. After that, a nuclear, Islamist Iran will establish effective control of the middle east. An invulnerable base for terrorism is what they want and what they will probably get.
The likely result after that is a series of dirty bomb attacks on western countries that are difficult to tie to Iran--it will be done thru Iranian proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah.
Eventually, though, we will be forced to act. Iran will use nukes on our troops and carriers when we do. And we will respond in kind.
Thus, our next dem president will likely be the person who sets in motion the first use of nuclear weapons agains Americans and the world's two-way Nuclear War. Israel probably does not survive except as cinders. Much of Iran will be devastated, also.
That same dem will also halt all work on missle defense and, if the Dean branch of the party has it's way, disable our existing capabilities in that regard, leaving us and Europe vulnerable to nuclear weapons launched by a bunch of barbarians.
That's why it's important not to elect a dem in 2008. The R's suck. But the dems . . . well, suck isn't nearly strong enough and I don't think the characterization I would use would be appropriate on a public forum--maybe 'objectively treasonous' will pass.
It's looking more and more like the Iranian exile who said we should not attack Iran (I think it was a WSJ editorial) because it would unite them against us is right.
I can't think of any other reason that the leadership would be so DESPERATE to get the U.S. to attack Iran. Why else would he want that so intensely?
It might well be that he doesn't have a stable contituency and wants to use the threat of an invasion or a bombing to turn his people against the United States and, by default, supporting him.
Don't be ridiculous.
If and when there is an Islamic nuke, it will not be pointed at us; it will be pointed at Israel. Even with it's last, dying breath, the Iranian regime would still launch the nuke against Israel, even with American troops on the front porch of the Iranian President's tent (or whatever he lives in).
The real danger to us of an Iranian nuke is not that we'll receive one on the end of an ICBM, nor that we'll have it delivered to us in New York or Boston via briefcase; the real danger is the ability to threaten our allies and the Straits of Hormuz.
Now, make all the wild-Tom-Clancy-like prognostications about Ahmedinijad (whatever) and his kooky ideas about 12th imams and such, the weapon(s) would still have to be launched by military men, the vast majority of whom are certainly often more pragmatic, rational and realistic than their political masters. You're making the assumption that all the Iranian generals and their sub-commanders (who would have physical control of the weapons)are all also 12th imam-Allah-told-me-Jell-O-is-the-food-of-the-Antichrist types, who do not care about or recognize, the consequences of their actions.
I agree. 2008 is too late. And Iran and our dems are working hard to make that happen. Fortunately, I think we have a president who would be willing to go to 10% approval rating if he thought it necessary to defend the country.
If I'm wrong in my assesment of W, and if a dem is elected in 2008, it's gonna look a lot like Armageddon. The 21st century is not going to be a nice time to be alive.
Good comment, intellegent and well thought out. Please send to upper managment at State CC: White House Chief of Staff et. al.
Great points:
Main thing is this, Always expect the worst and prepare for it.
But we'll just keep letting him take that rope -
Remember we will fight this GWOT at the times and places of our choosing....not our enemies.
"The real danger to us of an Iranian nuke is not that we'll receive one on the end of an ICBM, nor that we'll have it delivered to us in New York or Boston via briefcase"
I thought the World Trade Center was located in New York City. I am glad you are confident we won't be attacked.
Your assurance and a dime won't even buy me a donut.
Ahmadinajad is all bark and no bite. Just like Hitler.
Don't disagree with you on that point, but I do on the notion that the only way this goes is full nuclear exchange.
Don't have to tell me, pal: I walked away from 1 WTC on September 11th, and I haven't stopped thinking about it for the last 5 years.
And by the way, as I recall it, that was 19 nutjobs hijacking airliners, not sneaking a dirty bomb or launching an ICBM against New York City. In effect, three 757's inflicted the same amount of damage (sans radiation) that one would expect to see from a tactical nuclear device, at far less cost, with fewer security risks, and with a patina of "plausible deniability" for their masters.
The problems with defending against a 9/11-style attack all centered around a security apparatus that treated terrorism as a crime and not an act of war. THAT was the loophole the attackers exploited. But the "system" is alerted now and the chances of getting such a device into the United States (while still high) are not such that the risk outwieghs the benefit for Iran.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.